Blog For Arizona

Al Melvin Throws Down in Pima County

"It's like Hitler just invaded France," said a source in the moderate wing of the Pima County Republican Party of Joe Higgin's likely primary challenge of Ann Day for Supervisor in District 1.

That's not just Godwin's law in effect; my source only meant that a war that everyone knew was coming, and that many have been reluctant to fight, had finally arrived.

The war analogies kept coming, "what has been a cold war in the Party just went hot," said my deep throat.

As my source sees it, Al Melvin has just declared war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans with Higgin's entry into the race. Higgin is understood among Republican circles to be merely a stalking horse for Melvin with no hope of actually winning, but plenty of potential to make some joyful noise.

The newly declared war is for control of the Republican Party in Pima County. The establishment has been suffering the guerrilla attacks of the uber-conservatives for years now—taunting RINO hunts, primary challenges, a burgeoning far-right blog swarm, Graf's campaign against Kolbe and eventual nomination upon his retirement (and Kolbe's and the RNC's refusal to support that GOP nominee against a Democrat)—have all been skirmishes in the smoldering range war for the soul of the GOP in Pima and Arizona, more broadly.

Melvin's recruiting a movement conservative to challenge a GOP institution like Day was the last straw—or, more aptly, the assassin's bullet that set off a total war.

But perhaps Melvin has finally overplayed his hand. While Melvin is obviously hoping that a primary contest in the overlapping Supervisory District 1 will help stir his own base in his primary fight for Arizona Senate in LD 26 against moderate Republican Pete Hershberger, it could also finally prompt the establishment into a full scale counter-assault that could undermine Republican efforts to retake lost ground in LD 26.

If the GOP's civil war starts getting major press coverage, which a primary against Day is almost certain to attract, it could make what has been a quiet internal vendetta into a fully-fledged public feud. That could possibly distract or disgruntle voters in unrelated races where there is no primary challenge, like Bee's bid to retake CD 8 for the GOP.

Back to the military analogies: it's hard to take your objective without strategic unity of force. The Republican party nationally, state-wide, and now locally, is more divided against itself than it has been in recent memory as the cresting force of movement conservatism smashes into an establishment that has been willing to tolerate them only so long as they were winning elections.

And the movement conservatives haven't been winning, prompting movement conservatives to attack moderates even more vociferously in a zealous attempt at ritual purification of the Party to bring back the favor of the electoral gods. In reality, America is just fed up with the discredited anti-government politics of the far Right, even as anti-government dogma has become unquestionable in the GOP.

Voters' disgust plus a bewildering and vicious civil war in the Republican Party adds up to strategic advantage for Democrats at all levels. Most especially, Melvin's sneak attack on Ann Day (and by proxy the establishment of the Pima GOP) bodes well for the merry band of Democrats seeking to hold gains in LD 26.

I'm still on about flag pins...

OK, so I'm still on boil about this whole flag pin flap.

I'm not trying to demean George Stephanopoulos, who obviously feels passionately that one of the most pressing concerns of the day is understanding why Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, and what that means... What does he mean, what does it mean?  Does George have a flag pin?  He wasn't wearing one at the debate last night.  Neither was Hillary...WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS?

Alright, so maybe I am trying to demean him and all of ABC just a little.  But, seriously, if that is the most pressing issue they think we're facing today, can I just say, huh?  I've got bills to pay, a car to fill-up with gas I can't afford, and my check book looks like it's been in the hands of the Bush administration.

So, here's what I think we should do with flag pins.  (No, not that.)  I think we should have all of our politicians auction them off on E-Bay, with all proceeds going to say our schools?  Veterans? Affordable health care? Mortgage assistance for families? A balanced budget?

It'd be so patriotic, really.  A little capitalism, self-sacrifice, and service to our country, all in one.  Heck, it might even help stimulate economic growth.  Besides, if we don't do something now about this pressing issue, in four years, it'll be all about how "mine is bigger, than yours," and we don't want that.  We really, really don't want that.

Fact Checking John Munger

Posted by: AZBlueMeanie

How many readers actually watch the monthly "Face Off" segment between John Munger and Vince Rabago on Arizona Illustrated on KUAT?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  Just a handful of political junkies.  In case you missed the April segment, you can catch it on line at http://tv.azpm.org/kuat/segments/2008/4/14/kuat-the-face-off/

I feel oddly compelled to watch Arizona Illustrated just to see how my tax dollars are at work at PBS.  I am also curious to see what the legendary host Bill Buckmaster deems to be the most important political topics of the day.  I am often disappointed.

It has become difficult to watch the "Face Off" segment because of the disingenuous responses of John Munger and the physically hyperactive antics he engages in while ticking off the GOP talking points of the day that he has barely memorized well enough to do the segment.  Sometimes it looks as if his head is going to explode when he really gets agitated.  Calm down and take a deep breath, John.  You are demonstrating to the viewers that you lack the right temperament and emotional stability to serve as our next governor.

Munger habitually ticks off the GOP talking points of the day and self-proclaims them to be "just the facts."  Since no one knows in advance what wild-eyed craziness Munger is going to say before he actually says it, both Bill Buckmaster and Vince Rabago are at a disadvantage to challenge him on his alleged "facts" in real time. Munger's antics have undermined the intended purpose of the "Face Off" segment, i.e., a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the political issues of the day.  The viewers are left misled or confused by the bogus "facts" cited in the disingenuous responses of Munger.

So as a public service to the political junkies who actually watch the "Face Off" segment, I will endeavor to provide you with a fact check of John Munger after each monthly segment.

Let's go to the video... 

As Much as I'd Like to have a Woman President, I want to have the Right Woman...

So, I was out to dinner at Zona 78's with a group of my friends, all women, ranging from 30-something to 60-something, when one of them said, "I don't get it (Hillary)...Obama is the female candidate...I relate to him so much better."

I couldn't keep up with the number of voices clamoring their assent.  Everyone was talking over each other in excited agreement, which got me thinking.

We've spent so much time talking about racial and gender barriers during this primary that it never occurred to me, especially with a woman in the race, that my support for Obama has everything to do with his embodiment of feminine virtues.

Virtues like compassion, empathy, and sensitivity - that essentially female virtue of "caring for all." His ability to unite us for a brighter future, his call to service, and finding common ground, that sense of connection...of hope, trust, integrity, and possibilities.

It's simple he's got it, and she doesn't.  I can't relate to Hillary...

Yes, she's smart, disciplined and dedicated.  She's also self-serving, divisive, and imperious.

Given that, it's not a surprise that her favorite part of the campaign is when the gloves come off and the fur flies, along with the kitchen sink apparently.

What is a surprise is that so many women can't seem to look past the anatomy of the matter and into the heart.

Congress Must Stand Fast in Rejecting Bush's Assault on the Constitution

by John Adams

The US House of Representatives is right to reject the Administration’s cynically crafted version of the extension of the FISA amendment, the so-called Protect America Act of 2007.

Rather, our House acted wisely in passing its own version of the extension, which deletes immunity from prosecution for telecommunication providers who abetted secret and illegal wiretapping and internet monitoring.

As citizens, we must stiffen Congress’ resolve to defend our Constitution against continued assaults by the Bush Administration. Until their illegal activities were exposed by diligent investigative journalism in December 2005, the Bush Administration surreptitiously co-opted telecommunications providers to spy on both foreign and American phone calls and emails, operating under the provisions of a secret Executive Order signed by President Bush.

The Administration’s version of the FISA law extension would have precluded the filing of lawsuits against the telecommunications companies, essentially preventing any discovery in litigation into the Administration’s illegal spying activities. In contrast, the House version of the FISA amendment extension allows citizens the opportunity to bring suits before the court against these telecommunications companies for their clandestine cooperation with the Administration.

We should applaud the House for crafting a bill that will allow Americans to discover – in court -- more about the Administration’s flouting of our constitutional rights.

The fight between the Bush Administration and Congress over the Protect America Act (and its predecessor, the Patriot Act) is deceptively framed as a battle over the imperative of protecting our country from overseas threats. Instead, the struggle exemplifies the Bush Administration’s assault on real national security – our Constitutional liberties.

We have suffered much from terrorists -- certainly, we must confront Al Qaeda and their ilk. But in their assault upon the people of the United States, Al-Qaeda is abetted by those in this Administration who exploit the American people’s fears and demand the surrender of our most treasured liberties.

We stand at a crossroads in the defense of our Constitution, and in the defense of our real national security interests, as the henchmen who control our national security apparatus, both military and civilian, assiduously harness modern information technology to gain ever greater access to our privacy.

Administration officials, and the appointed heads of our intelligence bureaucracy, argue that the terrorist threat justifies the use of ever more powerful technologies to conduct ever more intrusive domestic monitoring, and therefore the government must exercise that capability.

The bare truth is that this Administration exploits the fear of terrorism to gain greater control over our intelligence and national security apparatus.

Still, the Administration sets the conditions for even greater abuses of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution. The Administration argues that the FISA law dating from the 1970s is obsolete, citing among other justifications that contemporary computer data-mining and traffic analysis techniques did not exist then. The truth is that behind closed doors, the Administration crafts a policy supporting the technology of intrusion.

The Administration’s perverse argument goes like this: because there now exist more effective techniques of intrusion, we should change the law to enable their employment. It is worth noting that the stakes are huge for the profits of corporations that depend on the further development and employment of the new intrusion technologies. However, as citizens, we should be most concerned with the erosion of our basic rights.

Truly, the long-term damage to our rights are yet to come, as a generation of right-wing judicial appointees create their legacies over the next decades, promising to weaken the process of judicial review of such Executive Branch abuses. This President and his Administration’s officials, who have taken an oath to protect the Constitution, are in truth spying on the American people, and violating the Constitution they purport to protect.

The strength of the United States derives from our constitutional processes, the respect we have for our own system, and the credibility and inspiration our example provides to less fortunate nations. A Commander-in-Chief who runs roughshod over Congress, demanding blind obedience from the American people because only he and his henchmen know best, damages our national unity as well as our reputation as a nation of law and democracy.

Truly, the protection of our national security includes many factors, not least of which is the people’s trust in the process of intelligence surveillance. There must also be credibility that intrusions into the long-cherished rights of a free population will be proportionate and reasoned.  Without that trust and credibility, we breed domestic insecurity and international condemnation.

One of our wisest Constitutional framers, Benjamin Franklin, said: “Those who would give up essential liberty in order to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Our liberties are not negotiable. They have been paid for by the blood of more than two centuries of genuine American patriots. It would be unconscionable for us to mortgage our constitutional heritage of liberty in order to placate the charlatans and criminals of this Administration who cynically claim they want to protect us from terrorism.

In hijacking our Constitution, this Administration and the technological goons who abet them deserve our scorn. Real national security for our country -- the defense of our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic -- demands that Congress stand fast in opposing the Administration’s self-serving constitutional mayhem, and stand by their wise version of the extension of the so-called Protect America Act of 2007.

The Star Fosters Discussion on Tucson's Future Growth

The Arizona Daily Star has recently filled a real vacuum in local civil society by encouraging Tucsonans to take a closer look at what kind of place they want to live in the future. I have quibbles, of course, but they are to be commended for acting as a catalyst and resource for a community faced with some serious choices. There are deep divisions about our future course between those who seek to manage growth (either more or less) and those who believe the facts indicate that we are far past their point where we can just grow smarter, we need to stop growing.

The Star certainly provided some interesting raw data to chew on from their survey earlier this month. Admittedly, some of the questions were intolerably leading and biased, or just plain dopey. But there is some gold in there. I found some insights into Tucsonans' attitudes toward water, transportation, and development.

Read more about what I see—and failed to see—in the data...

My Commentary by Mike Brewer

Mike Brewer recently participated in Tucson's own locally grown project, My Commentary. He says:

"After 39 years of tolerating the nightmares, intrusive thoughts, and psychic ravages of war, I feel impelled to purge myself, at 60 years old, from some of the questions that have lodged themselves in the calcium of my bones. It is simply not healthy to enter your twilight years knowing that a core part of your life was based on partial truths. I now put those questions to pen, anticipating a release of some of that psychic radioactivity, and a cleansing of my soul."

Here's his video Commentary:

Emily Bittner Rules The Octagon

I just love to watch a good sparring match. I prefer mixed martial arts, but Emily Bittner (AZ Dems' Communications Director) taking apart House Republican Spokeman Barrett Marson is nearly as fun—and almost as bloody. Of course, your view of who wins the this ep of Horizon's One On One depends entirely on your sympathies heading in—there's not enough time to really have a substantive debate in this format, and Emily clearly knows that. So, she goes for the take-down and the tap-out like any good cage fighter. Enjoy!

First Post - In Defense of Liberty!

by John Adams

First of all, thanks to Mike Bryan and Blog for Arizona for the opportunity to contribute to this exciting, progressive community.  It's a privilege to share our thoughts on today's issues.

Since this is my first post, please allow a brief introduction.

I retired from Active Duty in the US Army in September 2007, as a Brigadier General, with over thirty years' service to our Constitution as a Military Intelligence officer, Army Aviator, and Foreign Area Officer.

With on the ground experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan (temporary duty in 2004), I also served in Africa (Operation Guardian Assistance, Rwanda, 1996), Europe (Operation Allied Force, the Balkans, 1999), and the Middle East (Operation Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia, 1991).

On 9/11, I was at the Pentagon, 100 yards from the crash site...and on that tragic day I participated in the rescue and recovery of the shattered bodies of our brothers and sisters-in-arms. As a committed servant of the Constitution of the United States of America, I am determined to combat the murderers who attacked us on 9/11.

But I am just as determined to combat the fear-mongering criminals in the Bush Administration who assault our Constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us—and who under false pretenses, send our brave troops to die in the unconscionable occupation of Iraq.

From first-hand experience, I know national security issues. I also know that the Bush Administration cynically exploits our fears to gain ever more control of our national security apparatus, benefit the richest among us economically, and eviscerate our constitutional liberties.

Although I have taken off my Army uniform, I am no less committed to fighting for our Constitution—and for real national security—than I was when on Active Duty.

However, as John F. Kennedy said in his acceptance speech for his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1960, "We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light a candle that can guide us."

In that spirit, please allow me to address a brighter subject...the movement to elect Barack Obama as our next President. Barack has a life experience that demonstrates his capacity for hard work and commitment...and most important for someone who aspires to the Presidency, Barack is a brilliant, caring, perceptive, and courageous leader.

My own life experience convinces me that Barack Obama is the greatest leader we have seen in America for generations. He has the experience, the judgment, and the passion to inspire all Americans, to unite us, and to carry this country forward beyond ethnic and economic divisions.

As a delegate pledged to Barack Obama, I will fight to make him our nominee at our Democratic National Convention.  With the help of Americans united in the conviction that we must change the course of our country, and chart a new one that benefits all our people, we will elect a President of whom all Americans will be proud.

I am privileged to call Blog for Arizona my "home," including at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I welcome your thoughts—and your counsel—as we march toward Denver and beyond.

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"

National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.

When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.

Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social,  and Foreign policy.

A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.

Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.

What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.

UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.

Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.

The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.

On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.

I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...

 

The Flake Effect

Congressman Jeff Flake, representing Arizona's 6th Congressional District, is notorious for his anti-pork crusading. How appropriate then that he should take a sear on the House Appropriations Committee to take his war on Earmarks to a whole new level in the belly of the beast itself?

If there is a such thing as a useful member of the loyal opposition, Flake is it. Jeff Flake is one of the most consistently conservative members to ever sit in the House. Have no illusions that I support Jeff Flake - I don't. But he provides a vital public service with his principled stand against earmarking for which no one else seems to share the same passion. Please take a look at what he has to say on the subject (.WMV).

But when given the chance to nominate this notorious budgetary gadfly to a position at the heart of the budget process where he could have an enormous impact on the practice of earmarking, the GOP backed down. Flake had vowed to kill all earmarks that came within reach, including GOP earmarks, if placed on the Appropriations committee. Jo Bonner of Alabama, his chief rival for the post, did not make such a promise.

Jo Bonner got the seat.

You see, the Republicans love to talk a good game against those dirty, dirty earmarks (and make no mistake, I'm dead against them and I say "Go Flake!" when Jeff gets on his soapbox on the subject), but they couldn't be arsed to curb them when in the majority, and they feel dependent upon them for re-election now that they are in the minority.

The GOP didn't want Flake throttling the goose that laid the golden ballots.

Paul Giblin of the East Valley Tribune had this to say about the missed opportunity of a Flake on Appropriations:

"Flake’s appointment was widely supported by taxpayer watchdog groups. Yet, the talk around the Capitol was that Flake would put the Republicans at a competitive disadvantage in reforming the earmark process, because he would have gutted GOP earmarks immediately.

That’s right, Republican leaders were afraid of spending less first. That kind of thinking only makes sense in Washington, D.C."

This is the Flake Effect: a political party undermining it's own most effective members and messages in the service of short-term political expedience.

The Flake Effect isn't solely a GOP phenomenon - far from it, unfortunately.

Democrats, too, are suffering from an entire complex of Flake Effects: on the Iraq war, as they continue to fund it while pretending to oppose it and muzzling or marginalizing those who are really willing to go to the mat on the issue; on impeachment, as the leadership continues to deny the growing movement to enforce our Constitution rather than allow this administration to continue to shit on it; and on populist policies in every sector of the economy, from health care and taxes to financial services and trade, as Blue Dog Democrats and triangular DLCers continue to knuckle under to powerful economic special interests at the expense of the the long-term interests of the nation, and their party, as whole.

Those who initiate the compromises that cause the Flake Effect in both parties bruit their pragmatism and realism. They claim politics to be the art of the possible. They have forgotten the quality of leadership that separates the uninspired, and uninspiring, hacks from the statesmen and visionary leaders that a democratic nation needs to continue to progress and triumph, not just muddle through.

When our leadership consists of nothing more than lowered expectations, it is any wonder so many Americans are alienated from the political process? The true danger of the Flake Effect is the opportunity costs that style of 'leadership' imposes on society. Whenever we fail to achieve our promise as one of the most free and dynamic societies on earth, it is due only to our own short-sightedness and our leaders being caught in the trap of the Flake Effect.

Arizona Democrats in the News: AZ Rep. Steve Farley on CPS

I am inaugurating a new series here on Blog For Arizona. There is a lot of really great media coverage of Arizona's Democrats and the issues that our party members and elected officials are speaking out about. I've decided my little blog will do its little bit to help get those messages out there.

You can help by sending me clippings of good coverage of Arizona Democrats speaking out about important state and local issues. I want newspaper articles, television appearances, and radio spots. If you are a media coordinator for a candidate, office-holder or a party organ or committee, I want to hear from you. I don't want press releases, I want clippings, video and audio from press coverage.

We of the liberal Arizona blogs have an opportunity to do more to help the Democratic message get heard, and an opportunity to help shape that message.

Here's one of my own state representatives Steve Farley on Horizon (which airs in Phoenix, but not in his district in Tucson) discussing up-coming CPS public records reform legislation. Steve supports fellow Southern Arizonan Pete Hershberger's bill, HB 2765, which is scheded for hearing in Human Services (which isn't problematic, as Hershberger is the Chair) and Government Committees (where Kirk Adams, Steve's opposite on this issue, is chair, so some encouraging words to Adams would help).

Adam's competing bill on this subject,  HB 2454, allows "any person" to access the CPS records of a child victim when there is a fatality, only allowing withholding of records if CPS demonstrates a "specific, material harm" to a party by the release, but provides no standard of proof, nor any clear indication of what constitutes a "specific, material" harm. Such language sounds good to a layperson, but when I hear such ringing generalities, I hear the 'cha-ching' of prolonged litigation to figure out what that phrase means.

 

America and Iraq: The Economic Background of the Conflict, by Guest Commentator Karl Reiner

When he launched his brutal invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein shocked the world.  As his forces callously swept over the small neighboring state, he also deliberately smashed a budding rapprochement with the United States.  Although Saddam’s government had been peddling regional stability as an objective, it viciously repudiated that policy when it went to war. American intelligence officers were stunned and mortified.  Their analyses of Hussein’s intentions regarding Kuwait had been wrong.  No one had seen the invasion coming - not even the Kuwaiti leaders fleeing in terror toward the Saudi border.            

During the early 1980s, Iraq’s emissaries to Washington began pushing to improve relations with the United States.  They said Iraq wanted to end the war with Iran.  In their newly found desire to promote regional stability, the Iraqis expressed a willingness to support whatever agreement the Israelis and Palestinians worked out.  Had the bitter war with Iran forced Saddam Hussein to alter his policies?  An emphasis on economic development, the calls for regional peace and closer cooperation with the United States were taken as signs that the government of a war-weary Iraq was bending to reality.

More of Karl's unique first-hand perspective of the history of the Iraq conflict after the click...

 

Welcome Guest Author David Safier to Blog For Arizona

David Safier will begin blogging on the topic of education on February 1st. Dave is a retired educator with a background in urban studies and graduate studies in education. Dave is deeply concerned with the status of public education in Arizona and keenly interested in bringing greater awareness and understanding of those issues to the general public.

We talked about his joining Blog For Arizona to explore educational issues late last year while we were covering the Election Integrity trial and now he's ready to being posting regularly about his investigations and activism around education.

I am looking forward to reading more about the complex and vital subject area David has decided to tackle on our behalf. Welcome, David.

A Record of Abject Failure

This is for the conservatives who continue to cling to squishy, non-quantifiable notions vindicating the Bush Administration as anything other than an unmitigated disaster for America.

Here's the cold hard numbers. You may not like them. You may think they are irrelevant. But you have to deal with the fact that America and Americans are measurably worse off because a sizable plurality of us having been unwise, gullible, or plain stubborn enough to elect these utter incompetents - twice (or arguably, at least once... ok, maybe it wasn't a plurality either time, but it was close enough that they were able to make it stick...).

If you voted for Bush the first time it might be forgivable - he did simply lie about everything he intended to do as President. If you voted for him a second time - shame on you. You would be doing the rest of the country a favor by simply not voting in the next election, or any future election until you recognize your error - your judgment fundamentally flawed, and we'd be better off if you joined the ranks of the disaffected non-voters.

See the proof after the flip...

My Letter to the Editor

The Star published one of my letters to the editor yesterday.

Link: Letters to the editor | www.azstarnet.com

Several letters published recently in the Star have perpetuated the widespread misconception that violations of the immigration laws are crimes.

They are not crimes, in fact, but civil infractions. Whether an immigrant illegally crosses the border or overstays a visa, that person is not a criminal any more than you are a criminal for speeding.

Criminal law is reserved for acts that directly harm others or demonstrate moral turpitude. It is prejudicial and misleading to characterize undocumented immigration as any sort of criminal act.

Those who disagree should also consider that criminal defendants enjoy special Constitutional rights that are not afforded to civil defendants. These rights, such as the right to a jury trial, apply to all criminal defendants, regardless of their immigration status.

If undocumented immigration were criminalized, then dealing with accused violators would be a substantially more cumbersome and expensive process than it already is.

Michael David Bryan
Attorney, Tucson

Tim Bee's Big Surprise

Tim Bee stunned the Arizona political scene with a completely unexpected announcement that he is challenging Gabby Giffords for the CD 8 Congressional seat.

Seriously, though, Tim made it official -- he's in. I know, I was there. And, no, I didn't get tazed, Bro.

It was the kind of non-news news event one expects in the kabuki dance of American politics. But there were a few interesting bits.

Much more after the flip...

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer Draws a Line in the Sand on RealID

Link: Montana Governor Foments Real ID Rebellion.

"Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID, " Schweitzer wrote. "If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation's airports and federal courthouses."

I love this man. He is the Left's answer to Ron Paul. Fiercely principled, populist, and undaunted by any political fight; a man you would like on your side when the it comes to a throw down. And he loves his dog -- brings Jag to the office every day. That says something damn positive about a man, in my opinion.

Read his whole letter to the Governors.

I wonder why our Governor isn't joining in on this? I know for a fact that she would find a lot of support across the aisle on this issue.

Nancy Young Wright: Second Choice of LD 26, First Choice of CHuckelberrians

UPDATE 12pm: The Board voted 4-1 (Ray Carroll being the dissenter, as he so frequently is) to select Nancy Young Wright as the new State Representative for LD 26. Interestingly, even though Jorgenson got the most support among the PCs of 26 (not to mention Lena's) the Board nominated Nancy immediately, and Ray Carroll couldn't get a second when he suggested that Don deserved an up or down vote on the record before considering Nancy. Nancy is going to file papers to run today, so she will definitely be seeking re-election. She also said that she will be resigning her current job with the county, as she was a direct employee, not a contractor. Don Jorgenson and Cheryl Cage were both in attendance at the Board's meeting and were very supportive of Nancy once the vote confirmed what everyone expected. Don is certainly still running as Nancy's running mate. I don't know whether Cheryl Cage will also run, or if she will return to running the LD 26 campaigns. I will be sitting down with Nancy as soon as her schedule allows to give everyone a feel for her priorities for this and future sessions.

The Nominees to Fill Lena Saradnik's LD 26 Legislative Seat

This Friday, 1/18, at 10 a.m., the Pima County Board of Supervisors will meet to select the new State Representative for LD 26 to replace Lena Saradnik, who recently resigned for health reasons. By Monday a new Representative will be driving up to Phoenix to join the budget battle.

The elected LD 26 PCs tonight selected the slate of three nominees from which the Board will select that new Representative. The PCs preference, and that of Lena Saradnik, couldn't have been any more clear: they want Don Jorgenson as their new Representative.

Pima County Election Integrity Standoff Ends

And so it ends, not with a bang, but with a whisper of data flowing between two computers. The Democratic Party and it's staunch allies, the Republicans (try to get used to that idea, at least on this issue...) and the Libertarians, and a great number of Independent active citizens, have prevailed in the battle for the databases.

Pima County activists have won an absolute first: the first ever complete time-series GEMS databases of multiple elections in progress. This is a national treasure for the election integrity movement. Now, of course, comes the hard work of analyzing that which has been won, fully understanding the architecture of the normal data operations of an honest election, and building tools to sniff out signs of fraud. A team of top experts from across the political spectrum is assembling from across the county and they are calling themselves: The Royal Purple Team.

They are setting up a wiki to collaborate on analysis of the data and the tool building and distribution. Let the word go forth to the world, Pima County has the map to the Diebold fortress of security through obscurity, and we fully intend to take over the fortress and replace their silly, increasing etiolated topiary maze with real security measures and millions of citizens' eyes on the prize which that fortress protects: our democracy.

Huzzah!

How To Paint 'A' Mountain White

Now that Democrats have unquestionable control of the Tucson City Council, it is time to take a stand against allowing facile public displays of patriotism to substitute for the real thing.

It is time to end the hijacking of a cherished symbol of community unity and pride inspired by academic and athletic achievement to advertise a false unity behind an unethical, foolish, illegal, and increasingly genocidal occupation.

It is time to stop allowing a vocal and self-righteous minority to shove an enduring symbol of the failed policy in Iraq into the faces of every Tucsonan who doesn't support continuation of the occupation of Iraq.

It is time to stop using public resources to subsidize a controversial political viewpoint.

The city counsel must now gather up their courage and remove the A on the mountain from the field of partisan political play.

The A must be repainted white immediately. And any time public funds or personnel are used to repaint it due to wear or vandalism, it must be painted white.

The city code already requires the A be painted white. We have only to follow the law. No more tacit acquiescence to vandalism, no matter how patriotically inspired it may be.

I have had enough. I'm sure you have had enough. I'm even confident that the members of the City Council and the Mayor have had enough. It's time to call, or walk-in and visit with your council member and your Mayor and let them know that you are sick and tired, and you're not going to take it any more: you don't want a symbol of your city used as a jingoistic advertisement for war; you want the law to be followed; you want your 'A' to be white again.

Let's make this return to normalcy one of the first priorities of the new Council. Let's make the de-politicization of a symbol that is meant to represent our entire community a small local step toward healing this nation of the failed and curdled politics of the Bush era.

Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh: Defending the Employer Sanctions Law

I posted some pretty strong views on how effective the new employer sanctions law taking effect January 1st will be, and expressed concern about their impact on Arizona's economy. State Representative Kavanagh, one of the sponsors of the sanctions bill here in Arizona, responded to my post and I invited him to respond to two questions, as well as make any other comments or arguments he might wish:

1) Just how does this legislation actually address the problem of immigration, rather than simply punishing people to make it appear that something is being done, and

2) how can this legislation can be implemented without grave harm to Arizona's economy where an estimated 1/8th of the workforce is undocumented labor?

To his credit, Rep. Kavanagh immediately accepted my invitation and prepared the following guest post for this blog. Consider how many Democrats would accept such an invitation from Espresso Pundit or Red State Arizona... credit Rep. Kavanagh with conviction, at least.

Please keep in mind these are Rep. Kavanagh's views and by publishing them here I do not endorse these views. I am presenting them so that his ideas can be fairly expressed and then critically engaged by readers, and ultimately by myself as well.

Please respond respectfully and factually. Take issue with his premises, his data, his reasoning, and his conclusions, even his prior voting record and public statements, but please avoid purely ad hominem attacks or emotional tirades. They aren't helpful - even if they can be lots of fun. Please keep in mind the questions I asked him, and focus on those and other issues of the public welfare.

"Arizona’s new Employer Sanctions Law is the third prong of a comprehensive program to deter people from entering the United States illegally and to get those already here to leave on their own. The other two parts of the reduction program are denial of public benefits and increased border security.

The Employer Sanctions Law compliments existing federal law which makes it illegal to be present in the country without legal authorization. While this existing law goes after the illegal immigrants (supply side strategy), the new Employer Sanctions Law makes it unprofitable for businesses to hire them (demand side strategy). This demand side strategy is based upon a mixture of simple economics and common sense.

I believe that early anecdotal information suggests that the law is working. In addition, more solid evidence related to decreasing school enrollments and increased applications for Mexican birth certificates at the Phoenix Mexican Consulate also suggest that illegals are leaving. While some of the exodus is surely due to the depressed construction industry, I believe the new law is also partially responsible.

Arizona’s economy will not be gravely harmed by this reduction in the illegal worker population because illegal immigrants are a drain on Arizona’s economy and we would be better off without them. (See the December 2007 Congressional Budget Office Report "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigration on the Budgets of State and Local Governments" (PDF download))

It is estimated that Arizona taxpayers are burdened with costs of about $1.3 billion per year because of illegals residing in our state. That estimate only includes expenditures for education, emergency medical care and incarceration and does not include the costs for other government services and law enforcement.

The $1.3 billion estimate also does not include the bill for benefits to the children of illegals born here who, by virtue of citizenship, are entitled to full government services, including welfare and costly government-sponsored health insurance. Were their parents not here illegally, we would not be paying these expenses.

Illegal immigrants harm Arizona’s economy in other ways:

• By working for lower wages, illegals lower market wages and take good jobs away from legal residents.
• Because hospitals cannot recoup all of the uncompensated costs of treating illegals, they raise the bills of legal residents who consequently pay higher medical bills or health insurance premiums.
• Uncompensated medical outlays for illegals are now estimated at about $400 million per year.
• Maricopa County Hospital loses $2 million weekly on uncompensated care due largely to illegal immigrants.
• At least one hospital in Cochise County has filed for bankruptcy and may close due to uncompensated care.

Illegal immigrants also degrade our state in other non-economic ways. Our national parks near the Mexican border have been environmentally scarred by the unauthorized roads and trails illegals create and the trash they leave behind, as they illegally enter our country.

Of course, most legal residents never see this damage because they are too afraid to visit our parks due to the violence that accompany the illegal entrants in the form of companion drug traffickers and coyotes.

In some areas of Douglas, residents are so fearful of transient illegals that they do not go out alone at night. In Phoenix, illegal day laborers and their supporters are disrupting a community and attempting to destroy a neighborhood family business that dared speak out against the harm, fear and disorder that loitering and trespassing illegal day laborers cause.

Illegal immigrants also make our communities unsafe. Illegals make up 8% of Arizona’s population but comprise over 12% of the felons incarcerated in our prisons. That means that illegals are 50% more likely to commit serious crimes than legal residents and that’s a fact that police chiefs in sanctuary cities ignore but cannot deny.

Since many illegal immigrants drive illegally without auto insurance, the cost of insurance to the rest of us increases to pay for damages caused by uninsured illegals. The list of additional costs goes on and on.

Supporters of illegal immigrant labor claim that illegals also give back to the economy by the taxes they pay. However, because many illegals work “off the books” where they pay no taxes and those that work “on the books” often do so at near-minimum wage rates that do not trigger income tax collection, illegal immigrants contribute little in taxes beyond a small amount of sales tax.

Illegal immigrants are only an economic benefit to unscrupulous businesses who hire them for cheap wages to maximize their own profit and give themselves a competitive advantage over honest businesses that obey the law and pay a living wage.

The claim that the exodus of illegal immigrants would harm Arizona’s economy is also based upon the false premise that our workforce is currently operating at 100% efficiency and that the loss of a fraction of it could not be partially made up by the increased productivity of existing workers and automation.

This same claim has been made in the past by both government and private sector workers facing layoffs during tight fiscal times. Those workers claimed that staff reductions would have dire consequences. Yet, all of the governments and most of the private companies that reduced their workforces carried on, as the employees that remained worked more efficiently.

The final false premise advanced by advocates of illegal labor is that the federal government will not increase the number of guest workers to make up for the lost illegal workers. While Congress does appear deadlocked on how to handle the illegal immigrants currently in the United States, one of the few areas of agreement among parties on both sides of the illegal immigration issue is that guest workers are alright, so long as they are admitted in a controlled manner that does not jeopardize the jobs or wages of Americans. Guest workers are available and are politically and economically feasible.

In conclusion, illegal immigration threatens our nation in both economic and non-economic ways and the near-open border that facilitates it threatens our national security.  Illegal immigration insults our laws, increases crime and poverty rates, strains our social service and educational systems, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars more each year.

And what do we get in return - a hamburger that costs 10 cents less? It’s just not worth the savings.

We must stop illegal immigration now and Arizona is doing that by denying jobs and benefits to illegals. If the federal government would do its job by securing the border and providing businesses with carefully screened guest workers to fill the jobs that legal workers cannot fill, we just might be able to solve the divisive and costly problem of illegal immigration."

State Representative John Kavanagh is a Republican who represents Arizona's Legislative District 8, which includes Scottsdale, Fountain Hills and Rio Verde. He was a co-sponsor of the Arizona Employer Sanctions Law and maintains the anti-illegal immigration website, www.protectAZborder.com.

Peace On Earth, Goodwill Towards All

"Peace is not the product of terror or fear. Peace is not the silence of cemeteries. Peace is not the silent result of violent repression. Peace is dynamism. peace is generosity. It is a right and it is a duty."
-- Archbishop Oscar Romero

"I maintain that nothing useful and lasting can emerge from violence."
-- Shirin Ebadi, Iranian Nobel Peace Prize Winner

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-- Mohandas Gandhi

"Give peace a chance."
-- Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli General, Prime Minister, Nobel Peace Prize Winner

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-- George W. Bush, Resident of the United States

Christmas is both the best holiday and the worst.

The worst part is the commercialism, consumerist frenzy, and sheerly exuberant excess of manufactured needs and expectation of ostentation and waste that Madison Avenue has made of Christmas.

Christmas is the holiday most co-opted by American-style capitalism at it's soul-deadening worst. Rolled out like the yearly launch of the worlds' most sustained theme product launch, we get the chance to be heartily sick of the whole deal for over a month before it actually happens.

And then there is the politics. The "War on Christmas" mandarins do their dance of indignity whenever the Christmas dogma fails to be followed to the last scintilla of their satisfaction. The predominant religion of America gets a chance to pretend to feel put upon and persecuted in the same way that whites are discriminated against by affirmative action.

Underneath these complaints is the whiff of hypocrisy. Giving selflessly becomes merely a justification for consuming beyond our means and needs. Spiritual contemplation becomes an opportunity for public displays of piety and intolerance. The centrality of family in the rituals becomes the basis for mawkish political appeals that exploit the tired but true theme of "family values" and politicians get to engage in holier-than-him non-denominational religious appeals, such as this one:

But for all that, Christmas is still my second favorite of the holidays (the first being Thanksgiving).

The whole is redeemed by the intentional coming together of families that happens around Christmas. It is like a mini family reunion. A reason and a context for affirming and strengthening our ties to those we consider our families. That is worthwhile and, no matter how mixed with the negative aspects of Christmas I've mentioned it is, wholly a good thing in a culture that frequently takes too little time to cherish and nourish those familiar ties.

In a larger sense, Christmas also has the effect of focusing people, regardless of their faith, on the very best aspect of the Christian faith: the spirit and nature of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and how he lived his life as recorded in the New Testiment.

Gandhi once said:

"A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act."

That example of perfect selfless love for all of mankind is an aspect of Christianity that is too seldom emphasized by American Christians, and which can be an inspiration and source of spiritual strength regardless of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

In celebrating the birth of Jesus -- be he man or God or myth -- we focus on the potential to be Christ-like that too frequently lies dormant in our own natures. The result can be that special Christmas magic where true selfless giving, unconditional love, and tolerance for all (even, or especially, one's enemies) becomes just a touch more common a presence in the world. And that is a wonderful thing, indeed.

May all of you enjoy the company and closeness of your families, indulge freely in selflessness and unconditional love, practice radical tolerance, and work for peace on Earth this Christmas season.

Karl Reiner: Some of the Consequences of Our Apathy and Detachment

It has been said that American voters like solutions to political problems that are quick, cheap or paid for by someone else.  In such an environment, elected officials are encouraged to postpone addressing problems that don’t fit the mold.  After a problem escalates into a crisis, the unnerved electorate reverses its position and the political leadership rushes to repair the damage. 

It may not be the best way to conduct national affairs, but we seem to like it. We have grown accustomed doing nothing for long periods and then reacting with a self-righteous vengeance when the problem spins out of control. 

Congress oversees the federal agencies responsible for border security, immigration and foreign relations.  It is aware that the majority of migrants attempting to cross the border into Arizona are Mexican nationals trying to enter the U.S. to find work.  For the past 25 years, Congress and the White House have ignored the fact that Mexico’s ongoing anemic economic performance was contributing to the problem.  Mexico is linked by geography to the southwestern United States.  It is a major U.S. trading partner and a component in resolving the illegal migrant issue. 

Through September 2007, our two-way trade with Canada totaled $277.0 billion.  For the same period, the total for Mexico was $167.8 billion.  A large number of jobs on both sides of the border depend on the commercial relationship between the three countries.  If Mexico had been a foreign policy priority for the last 25 years, the total for Mexico would be a great deal higher today due to its economic expansion.             

Because Mexico and Arizona share part of the national border, our futures are linked in many ways. Economic stagnation in Mexico drastically impacts Arizona. On the other hand, a prosperous and economically viable Mexico will benefit Arizona to a great degree. 

The U.S. government is proposing to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion to fight drug trafficking over the next three years.  At the same time, Congress and the White House should be looking into ways to get the Mexican government to stimulate economic growth.  The country’s legendary corruption problem needs to be addressed along with Mexico’s atrociously poor productivity growth rate.  The impediments stifling business formation, competitiveness and innovation in the economy have to be removed. 

The committee on foreign affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives made national headlines recently when it announced it had determined that the killing of the Armenians during the World War I era was a genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire.  While the dismal fate of the Armenians during the period of collapsing Ottoman rule nearly 100 years ago is a subject worthy of historical study and evaluation, Arizonians should rightly question the priority given the subject by a Congress unable to come to grips with the immigration problem here at home.

Citizens have to demand that Arizona’s congressional delegation prod Congress to focus on Mexico’s economic situation because it is a key factor in determining how successful Arizona’s economic future will be.  The matter certainly should rate as high in importance as the recent revisit of World War I events.

The “no amnesty” policy championed by many as the solution to the illegal alien (as they call them) question has a goal of ridding the United States of approximately 12 million undocumented individuals.  While the implementation of this policy would create new government contracting opportunities for those willing to seek out, incarcerate and transport large numbers of people, it would be extremely disruptive to society as a whole.  Humanitarian concerns aside, the chaos caused by the roundup and wholesale deportation of a sizable chunk of the U.S. workforce is not an event this economy can easily withstand.

Deportation would also be a peculiar position for the government to embrace given its previous policy of more or less ignoring the situation.  By not acting when it should have, the U.S. tacitly encouraged the workers to come in.  The new immigrants, as were most of those in the past, were not bent on the destruction of the United States.  They came from places of little opportunity to find work in a country where they were allowed to fill jobs.  Their much derided economic contribution has been real; it cannot be simply discounted as being irrelevant.  The economic consequences of a deportation policy are real.  They have to be seriously considered as the debate over immigration policy continues.

In the 1980s, industry lobbyists persuaded Congress to deregulate the savings and loan industry.  As part of the process, Congress purposefully had the government retain responsibility for guaranteeing the safety of deposits in the deregulated savings and loans. The unpleasant consequences of the newly liberated environment became apparent to all when Charles Keating and his Lincoln Savings in Phoenix leaped into the headlines. 

To the astonishment of lawmakers, the deregulated and rowdily managed savings and loans were not helping to generate greater national prosperity; they were imploding on a massive scale. Their sequential failures during the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in the severest blow to the U.S. financial system since the Great Depression. Over 1,000 savings and loans eventually failed.  The government dutifully acted on its guarantee, and the taxpayers footed a bill of nearly $124 billion to clean up the wreckage.  This amount was on top of the once overconfident industry’s own substantial losses. 

The lessons learned in cleaning up the savings and loan mess didn’t seem to stick.  The housing industry, one of the major drivers of the U.S. economy, has now become entangled in a financial mess that may take two to three years to remedy. It is estimated that about two million homeowners are carrying $600 billion in subprime adjustable-rate mortgages.  The low initial interest rates on these mortgages are expiring.  They are scheduled to ratchet up during the next two years. 

As a result of the combination of slipshod lending practices, cheap credit and the unrealistic belief that housing prices would always continue to climb, many of the home buyers are finding themselves holding mortgages they will be unable to carry at the new rates.  The regulators didn’t pay attention as the inventive mortgage financing industry promoted its teaser rate inducements to unwary buyers.  No one questioned the industry’s motives as it developed ways to turn these mortgages into investment securities, a process that detached the lender from the risk of default. Since the lender’s motivation to closely check the creditworthiness of borrowers was reduced, a degree of misrepresentation and even outright fraud crept into the system.

To make matters worse, the neatly packaged securities containing the subprime mortgages were marketed to buyers around the world as first-class investment products.  When the low preliminary mortgage rates began to expire about the same time as the housing market began to slow and prices leveled off, defaults on subprime mortgages started to rise.  Billions in what may be reduced value investments are now on the balance sheets of the largest global banks. The mounting losses could easily spill over into the pension and mutual funds that invested in the same securities.

One after another, large banks have begun writing down the value of their subprime assets and CEOs have started to exit. In this uncertain situation, many of the small borrowers, who didn’t understand what kind of obligation they were taking on, will get wiped out.  The banks will have to take massive write-offs, significantly devaluating their investors’ stock holdings.  Large numbers of employees will be laid off, the lucky ones getting severance pay. 

The corporate officers and directors, who organized, ran and oversaw this ugly show will do nicely. They will suffer a little mortification from the wave of relentless press stories exposing their lack of judgment and poor management practices.  They will, however, be able to retain the all bonuses and hefty salaries already in the bank. They will not be forced to give up their big houses or multiple cars.  Thanks to the money made in mortgage securities, they will not have to rely on social security payments when they retire.            

The effects are ricocheting through the economy.  The U.S. Department of Labor estimates around 100,000 jobs related to the financial services sector have already disappeared.  Foreign investors have become distrustful of American offerings; the value of the dollar is plunging.  Housing sales are slumping, construction is slow, and the median price of homes has dropped approximately 5 percent since last year.  Analysts are predicting an additional 5 to 9 percent drop before housing prices level off. 

The shock waves of the creative financing binge will reverberate throughout the economy, maybe pushing it into a recession.  The final cost has yet to be tallied.  It remains to be seen if the taxpayers will have to provide a bailout.

It is now clear that the undisciplined dealings in mortgages and securities will put a sizable dent in America’s economy.  As it did with the savings and loan debacle, Congress will hold hearings and move to tighten regulations.  The White House will look for ways to control the damage because the president’s appointees supervise the regulatory agencies. 

The problem has already hit home.  Arizona has been affected, the housing slump driving the state’s economy into a downturn. The University of Arizona’s researchers have found that, along with Michigan, California, Nevada and Florida, we have entered the beginning phases of a recession.

Karl Reiner is a friend of this site and an active voice for a fact-based approach to the issue of immigration from Mexico. He asked me to post this commentary here on BlogForArizona.com. This blog published previous articles by Karl on the world's richest man, the failure of the immigration bill considered by Congress this year and the economic underpinnings of Mexican immigration, as well as the transcript of an erudite lecture Karl gave on that subject.

Karl managed international trade and economic policy analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, DC. He served as an acting deputy assistant secretary during the first Bush and Clinton administrations. A Vietnam veteran, he is a graduate of the Ohio State University and holds a MS degree from the Garvin School of International Management. After retiring from government service in 1994, he did consulting and authored a novel, "Sgt. Bellnapp’s Secret", published in 2001, and a collection of historical essays, "Remembering Fairfax County, Virginia," last year.

 

David Safier: A Layman’s View of the Election Integrity Trial

Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.

I’m not a lawyer, and though I’m computer literate, I’m not a tech guy, so I'm not an expert. But I have gotten deeply involved in the Democrats’ fight to increase the transparency of our elections and the suit to gain access to past election databases from Pima County. I sat next to Mike Bryan through the four days of the trial, recording the play-by-play testimony while he did the summaries and commentaries. Here are my impressions of the four days.

It became clear to me early in the trial that the decision in this suit was going to hinge on the kind of man Judge Miller is—not so much his political leanings as his intellect and temperament.

The arguments by the two sides certainly have a political component to them —are you more willing to accept the dangers caused by openness in government or the dangers inherent in allowing the government to operate in secret?—but as important, each side’s argument would appeal to a judge with a certain way of viewing the law.

Pima County’s argument for not releasing the databases is based on a very literalist view—that portions of the databases can be called “programming,” and therefore you can’t release them, because the law forbids releasing programming from the elections software. The argument, in essence, is that these are the rules, and you have to take them literally, even if they don’t make any sense, because, well, they’re the rules. (“I know you ran out of the store to administer CPR to someone who was about to choke to death in the parking lot, but you had a carton of milk in your hand, so technically, you were shoplifting.”)

The Democratic Party’s argument —that the bits of “programming” in the database are not an intrinsic part of the software and don’t give away any secrets—says you have to look at the intent of the law to understand it. (“Sure, leaving the store with merchandise you haven’t paid for is the literal definition of shoplifting, but we need to look at the larger picture here. His motivation was to save someone’s life, not steal a carton of milk.”)

If the judge is the kind of man who says, “I’m sorry, rules are rules. There’s nothing I can do, my hands are tied,” he will rule for the county and say the Democrats should not be given the GEMS database, because it contains some material that can be called a “computer program.”

If he’s the kind of man who says, “The intent of the law is more important than the strictest interpretation of a few words in the law,” then he will rule for the Democratic Party, because the information in the database that is “programming code” does not reveal anything that can be considered confidential about the election software and therefore poses no risk of someone’s using it to hack into an election and manipulate the results.

As I watched Judge Miller, I was encouraged by the fact that he has an expansive mind, the mind of a student hungry to learn more about the topic in front of him. Generally, someone who is hungry for deeper understanding of issues is less likely to have a rigid approach to things, and that favors the Democrat’s arguments.

I don’t think he began the case with a deep understanding of technology, but as I listened to the questions he asked, first in the hearings, then in the trial, I saw a growing knowledge and a growing curiosity about the technical issues concerning computers, software, code, etc.

He was not just doing his homework. He was understanding the material he was studying. I could hear him thinking, “No one’s going to bamboozle me with technical mumbo-jumbo in my courtroom. I’m going to educate myself so I can make a decision based on understanding, not based on who is the better bamboozler.” That means, listening to the County’s lawyers repeating, “It’s a program! It’s a program!” over and over won’t have much effect on him.

The Democratic Party has the better argument in this case. Once an election is over, it simply wants to see the records of the counting of the ballots. If this were a paper-and-pencil count, all they would be asking for is the pieces of paper that were used to make a running total of the votes, so they could see that the final numbers reflected the votes cast.

Wanting to scrutinize the vote count is so obviously within the oversight duties of political parties in Arizona elections, that part of the Democrats’ request isn’t even an issue. The primary argument the County has is that this is not about the right of the party to view the ongoing vote count. It is about the strict reading of Arizona law that forbids the party from seeing the method used to count the vote—the programming code the computer uses to make the count.

The County’s secondary point  is the “If I told you that, I’d have to kill you” argument—that something about revealing the information to the Democratic Party would create an inherent danger to the state which would be far greater than the good created by increased transparency. And that “something” is the revealing of the programming code, which would give malevolent forces all over cyberspace the ability to hack into elections that use the GEMS software.

The best argument against the strictest interpretation of the term “programming” came from Mickey Duniho, one of the experts who is part of the Election Integrity Committee, during his questioning by the judge.

Duniho said, in essence, the line between what is data and what is programming has become so blurred in today’s computer world that it is almost irrelevant. Most databases are full of little bits and pieces that can be called “programming.” The important question is, do those bits and pieces reveal anything about the underlying software that makes it more vulnerable? In the case of the databases generated by the GEMS software, Duniho concluded, the answer is No.

(Mickey, this is my layman’s translation of your testimony. Forgive me if I messed it up a little.)

When Judge Miller questioned Bryan Crane, the election division’s computer technician, about the dangers posed by allowing the Democratic Party to have the databases, it sounded like the judge had accepted Duniho’s interpretation of the term, “programming.” The judge asked Crane to explain how the “programming” information in the database could be used to hack into an election and manipulate the results.

The scenarios created by Crane were ludicrous—bad actors creating their own memory cards, secretly breaking the tamper-revealing seals on the machines and slipping in the counterfeit cards, or creating false ballots, somehow duping voters into using them, and stuffing the ballot box with counterfeit ballots. If the trial ended at that moment, I’m reasonably certain the judge would have ruled in favor of the Democratic Party.

Toward the end of the trial, the County seemed to realize their only shot was to hammer home their “If I told you, I’d have to kill you” argument.

Their star witness, an “expert” from Kennesaw State University in Georgia, painted a lurid picture of what would happen if the database were released “into the wild.” (He loved that term, used it over and over.)

He painted a picture of hackers all over the world getting hold of the database and creating chaos in elections around the country. It was a variant of the oft-repeated Bush administration theme that if we reveal any of our secrets, the terrorists will use them against us.

By the time Bill Risner, the attorney for the Democratic Party, finished with cross examination of the “expert,” though, the threat of releasing the database was shown to be about as real as Iraq’s weapons of destruction, and the “expert” looked like a professor with one clever lecture and nothing else to say.

The judge said he’ll give his decision next week. I’m betting he’ll decide to release the databases to the Democrats. Though the judge has a great poker face and never gave away his feelings, his line of questioning tells me he saw the weaknesses in the County’s arguments and understood the value of letting the election observers—the political parties—perform their duties and do everything they can to assure that every vote is counted, and counted accurately.

Pima County Election Integrity Trial: Testimony of Paul Eckerstrom

Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.

Please keep in mind this is not a transcript but a paraphrased and condensed summary. Rely at your own risk. Special thanks to Dave Safier for preparing this summary.

Summary of testimony by Paul Eckerstrom

Direct Examination by Bill Risner, attorney for the Pima County Democratic Party.

Paul Eckerstrom was the chair of the Pima County Democratic Party from 2003-2006.

He created the Election Integrity Committee in 2003. The goal was to assure that we can have confidence in how votes are counted. The committee saw how insecure Diebold voting systems were, so they began to propose ways to increase security.

The Democratic Party endorsed the RTA election, urging citizens to vote Yes.

The party is in court to make sure that, in our role as a political party charged to have oversight over vote counting, there is transparency in the system so we can perform genuine oversight.

Cross Examination by Deputy County Attorney Christopher Straub.

In deposition, Eckerstrom said he wants the legislature to know about the problems with election software. If the Democratic party shows there are problems, is can give weight to be used in the legislature. That’s the reason the party is going to court.

Asked if that means the true reason for the lawsuit is to change the software, Eckerstrom replied, in a number of other places in the deposition, he said that to follow our role of oversight, we need transparency. If the legislature is made aware of the problems with the software as a byproduct of our efforts and addresses the problems, so much the better.

The county has put in security measures suggested by the Democratic Party, which is a good thing.